DPR Pesticide Prioritization Workshop: A Stakeholder’s Takeaway
By Jason S. ~ Sonoma County PCD Coalition
Last Tuesday, April 8th, I attended the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) workshop on the new Pesticide Prioritization Process, which will shape how the state identifies and reevaluates higher‐risk pesticides over the coming years. Below is my short summary and why it’s important for us all to weigh in before May 8 during this public comment period. Comments Accepted Through May 8 on DPR’s Presentation for Pesticide Prioritization
Summary of the Presentation
- New Evaluations and Possible Cancellations
DPR laid out a data‐driven framework for deciding which pesticides to reevaluate or restrict each year. They aim to start one reevaluation annually in 2025, moving to two per year by 2029, although slide 16 showed an entry mechanism for up to 8 per year. When questioned on the actual number of products up for reevaluation per year, JT Teerlink replied that while the entry into the pipeline might be singular, or dual, the evaluation might be of an AI, mode of action, or particular exposure, which in turn, if canceled could lead to multiple Branded products being removed from the Pest Control Toolbox. - Role of the Science Advisory Committee
A major emphasis: The proposed Science Advisory Committee (SAC) will ground its decisions in hard data and validated research—rather than being swayed by public perception alone. DPR clearly wants objective scientific evidence guiding each evaluation. This is the primary need for public comment at this time. The question was raised about including Agricultural Commissioners to the Committee, especially if the nominated AC has a scientific background, to ensure that stakeholder voices are at the table, Teerlink said that the list of potential committee members and who they should be, see slides 19 and 20, has not yet been finalized, and to speak up now. - 40 Chemicals Potentially on the Radar
In a detailed survey of chemicals used in the farming of Wine Grapes, immediate note are about 40 active ingredients likely to come under scrutiny for one reason or another. Many of these have no clearly identified, ready‐to‐use alternative yet. That gap inevitably raises concerns about maintaining effective pest control if certain products are restricted or canceled. It is imperative that the decisions for any cancellation be based firmly on scientific rational, not simply public perception, and that there is a viable alternative. Currently available products have been approved based on specific use restrictions and requirements, if met most of these are considered safe. The reevaluation process must consider the economic impact, and viability of the products being produced. - Cadence of Approvals for New Products
Slide 17 underscored the question, “Are there feasible alternatives?”—which drew plenty of discussion. DPR representatives acknowledged that if they initiate reevaluation (and potentially cancel) an active ingredient, they need a realistic timeline and faster track to approve or research safer replacements. Growers and stakeholders rightly worry that if products are lost prematurely, it may leave us without viable options for serious pest pressures.
Key Questions Raised at the Workshop
- Is the Reevaluation Pace Adequate?
With 25 years remaining to hit the DPR 2050 Roadmap of eliminating all High Priority Pesticides, activist voices raised concerns that tackling only one or two per year might not keep pace. DPR staff pointed out, however, that some reviews may group multiple products based on shared chemistry or risk. Reevaluation might be based on a particular AI, Mode of Action, or Exposure, which could then lead to the cancelation of multiple labels in one order. - How Will Mitigation vs. Cancellation Be Balanced?
Attendees asked whether specific uses might be preserved or mitigated if data show that more targeted restrictions could reduce risk. DPR indicated it would rely on peer‐reviewed science to identify off‐ramps for products once they’ve entered the reevaluation pipeline that demonstrate minimal impacts under certain conditions. - When & How Do We Get New, Safer Tools?
Certain chemicals that may come into question might be lacking immediate alternatives, there is a strong consensus that DPR should expedite new product registrations and support additional research. Absent workable alternatives, wholesale cancellations could create significant pest‐management gaps. This issue is of very high concern to a group like SCPCDC, where limiting our ability to respond in a timely manner to an invasive threat could be ruinous to our industry! - Public Perception vs. Actual Data
Some widely known products are lightning rods of public debate, while other high‐risk pesticides garner little attention outside agricultural circles. DPR underscored that the Science Advisory Committee would base recommendations on empirical data—whether the pesticide is a “household name” or not.
Why Speak Up Now
DPR is inviting public comments on the Pesticide Prioritization Presentation through May 8. If you have concerns about specific active ingredients, the lack of alternatives, or potential disruptions to the wine grape sector (or any other area of pest control), now is the time to weigh in. We can help ensure that decisions are practical, balanced, and reflect on‐the‐ground realities.
Submit your feedback:
Comments Accepted Through May 8 on DPR’s Presentation for Pesticide Prioritization
For more detail on the 40 pesticides most relevant to California wine grapes, or if you’d like to stay updated on local pest management programs, subscribe to our newsletter at:
sonomacountypcd.org
Contact
Please reach out if you have questions or want to discuss the implications of DPR’s reevaluation process. Whether you’re a grower, researcher, or community member, your voice can make a difference in shaping sound, scientifically grounded pest management policies.
Sonoma County Pest Control District Coalition 